waypoint and TOU agreement

[+trainlove]

I just recently re-started using GSAK. My premium membership lapsed last June and my laptop dies but my web email still had some PQ's.

 

One thing I do not see in the PQ email is a very simple sentence to the effect that "The following information is for YOUR own use and you are not to share it with anyone whatsoever for whatever purpose."

 

1 Sentence in the PQ email will stop people from wanting to do things that are against those leaglease proclamations that perhaps 1% of people actually read but all automatically agree to without question.

 

[GEO] Pocket Query: My Finds Pocket Query‏ 
From: contact@geocaching.com 
Sent: Mon 6/18/07 7:06 PM 
To:  raymondjerome@hotmail.com 

Security scan upon download   
454304.zip (1016.9 KB) 
If you're having problems downloading attachments, please sign in again and select "Remember me on this computer".
Sign in again
Here are the Pocket Query search results in the formats you requested. 454304.gpx: GPX is an extended GPS exchange format that can be read by both EasyGPS and ExpertGPS, as well as various other software applications. The latest version of EasyGPS for Groundspeak can be downloaded from the links section of Geocaching.com. You will need the latest version to read this format.454304-wpts.gpx: This additional GPX file contains supporting waypoints for your Pocket Query.   Visit the online results:

[+Team_CSG]

I will share a PQ result with those I will be hunting with as a group. I hope this does not get closed.

[+KRnlKilR]

I will share a PQ result with those I will be hunting with as a group. I hope this does not get closed.

 

 

I'm not sure that is the same thing. I think the not sharing clause of the TOU agreement is meant to (1) discourage people from (re)posting the results of the PQ (.gpx) file to another publicly accessible website for the purpose of dissemination, thus preventing Groundspeak from obtaining a subscription fee, and (2) discourage cacher from sharing that same information with non-premium members, again preventing Groundspeak from obtaining a subscription fee.

 

 

I don't know if that applies to family members, or guest, of the premium member, but I like to think that it doesn't. It would be kind of sucky for me to take a friend out to introduce him to geocaching, but not let him use the information in my GPSr or PDA device to locate the cache because he hadn't yet signed up for a premium account. Same for taking my family out with me. Why would they want to go, if they couldn't help find the cache?

 

Edited to fix BB Code issue.

Edited February 11, 2008 by krnlkilr

[+StarBrand]

....

I'm not sure that is the same thing. I think the not sharing clause of the TOU agreement is meant to (a) discourage people from (re)posting the results of the PQ (.gpx) file to another publicly accessible website for the purpose of dissemination, thus preventing Groundspeak from obtaining a subscription fee, and ( discourage cacher from sharing that same information with non-premium members, again preventing Groundspeak from obtaining a subscription fee.

.....

I think that sums it up well in my understanding.

 

I don't think there is any problem taking your friend out caching or a family member with the data in your GPS or group of your GPSs. However, sharing the file itself with a group of existing Geocaching friends to put on thier GPS units would probably violate the TOU.

 

Wireless sharing on the Colorado units excepted.....

[+trainlove]

These misuunderstandings are exactly the reason I posted this subject.

 

1. Going with someone to a cache and telling him the coordinates is not sharing. Reading to him the cache name, owner name, type, size, terrain, difficulty and hint. If you want to do that for a hundred caches then it's your lungs, but don't give him a GSAK printout or let him hold your GPS. Actually these are OK I think but see below.

2. Giving someone a printout of a cache page, well this is not part of this discussion.

3. Emailing a PQ, or having someone give you a USB drive with his PQ while you import that into your computer is way against the rules.

4. Along the lines of 3 above, giving someone a bit for bit copy, whether it's manipulted or direct from geocaching.com is a no no.

 

So you see, one simple sentence in the PQ email to you stating what's written in the waypoint agreement (in summary) will force people to understand groundspeaks reasons for not sharing data.

Edited February 11, 2008 by trainlove

[+Renegade Knight]

The TOU says you can'te share the data.

 

The GPX I believe (and could be wrong) is an open standard so you can share the files.

 

That would make for a Catch 22.

 

Caching with friends is an accepted use. I think that's where it starts and ends in spite of any Catch 22s.

[+trainlove]

The TOU says you can'te share the data.

 

The GPX I believe (and could be wrong) is an open standard so you can share the files.

 

That would make for a Catch 22.

 

Caching with friends is an accepted use. I think that's where it starts and ends in spite of any Catch 22s.

 

The contents of the file IS the data.

You surey can share the gpx tags such as <name> and so on but what's between the <something> and </something> is what's NOT TO BE SHARED.

Am I right?

[+KRnlKilR]

These misuunderstandings are exactly the reason I posted this subject.

1. Going with someone to a cache and telling him the coordinates is not sharing. Reading to him the cache name, owner name, type, size, terrain, difficulty and hint. If you want to do that for a hundred caches then it's your lungs, but don't give him a GSAK printout or let him hold your GPS. Actually these are OK I think but see below.

2. Giving someone a printout of a cache page, well this is not part of this discussion.

3. Emailing a PQ, or having someone give you a USB drive with his PQ while you import that into your computer is way against the rules.

4. Along the lines of 3 above, giving someone a bit for bit copy, whether it's manipulted or direct from geocaching.com is a no no.

 

So you see, one simple sentence in the PQ email to you stating what's written in the waypoint agreement (in summary) will force people to understand groundspeaks reasons for not sharing data.

 

I just recently re-started using GSAK. My premium membership lapsed last June and my laptop dies but my web email still had some PQ's.

 

One thing I do not see in the PQ email is a very simple sentence to the effect that "The following information is for YOUR own use and you are not to share it with anyone whatsoever for whatever purpose."

 

<SNIP>

 

 

The initial post contained the highlighted section above. Basically, a line that vague scares me. Not that I am out to repost, share, sell, distribute or anything else with the data that comes in a PQ other than use it in GSAK for my caching pleasure. But statements that broad leave a lot of wiggle room for interpretation, and could get someone in trouble for such things as, as you said, allowing someone to hold your GPSr while it contains a derivitave of the data from the PQ. Not that anyone is going to follow you around to make sure that you don't, but it is easier to prove that you did do something, than to prove you didn't.

 

I agree with points three and four of your reply, and I would be fine with that being included in the email containing the PQ results. However, the statement you proposed would need to be refined so as not to be so vague.

 

OK, now I'm just babbeling. Sorry.

 

Edited for HTML issues.

Edited February 11, 2008 by krnlkilr

[+cache_test_dummies]

1 Sentence in the PQ email will stop people from wanting to do things that are against those leaglease proclamations that perhaps 1% of people actually read but all automatically agree to without question.

Do most people really even read the PQ email? I never even open mine - I just go directly to the attachments folder and grab the zip file.

[+cache_test_dummies]

The TOU says you can'te share the data.

 

The GPX I believe (and could be wrong) is an open standard so you can share the files.

 

That would make for a Catch 22.

 

Caching with friends is an accepted use. I think that's where it starts and ends in spite of any Catch 22s.

 

The contents of the file IS the data.

You surey can share the gpx tags such as <name> and so on but what's between the <something> and </something> is what's NOT TO BE SHARED.

Am I right?

That's my understanding as well.

 

Here's the critical part in this regard (under Permitted Uses):

Licensee shall not sell, rent, lease, sublicense, lend, assign, time-share, or transfer, in whole or in part, or provide access to the Data, Related Materials, any updates, or Licensee's rights under this Agreement to any third party whatsoever.

Link to the TOU (for reference).

[+the hermit crabs]

Wireless sharing on the Colorado units excepted.....

Sort of: I don't have a Coloroado, but apparently the wireless sharing doesn't share everything. Although the CO can store all of the cache info from the gpx file, including the text description, only bare-bones info is transmitted from one CO to another. See "Sending a geocache from one Colorado to another looses information".

[+Renegade Knight]

...Am I right?

 

About the catch 22? Most likely. The GPX format if it's open likley has a TOS that says it remains open.

 

It may have an out for "extensions". But that would mean that basic info common to all GPX files is transferable after a fashion. Plus cache owners have put that out there for all to use. Not just Groundspeak to slurp up and lock up. We retain ownership of our data. That's also in the TOS.

 

You need the rest of the story if we are to play armchair lawyers.

There are three stories involved. The GPX TOS, Owners intent, and Groundspeaks TOS. Mix in some actual and accepated use. We don't need explicit permssion to pass on cache info. Merely adequate.

[+Prime Suspect]

The TOU says you can'te share the data.

 

The GPX I believe (and could be wrong) is an open standard so you can share the files.

 

That would make for a Catch 22.

I don't think so. That would be like saying I can't create a copyrighted book using an open source text editor.

[+Rattlebars]

• Licensee shall not remarket, resell, and/or redistribute the Data or any derived portion(s) of the Data in its digital form to any third party whatsoever.

 

Taken literally does this not mean that publishing cache stats (IE "derived portion(s)") is a violation? (third party emphasis mine)

[+Team Black-Cat]

 

1 Sentence in the PQ email will stop people from wanting to do things that are against those leaglease proclamations that perhaps 1% of people actually read but all automatically agree to without question.

 

 

I think fewer than 1% would read the line in the email. Since my PQs are downloaded automatically by GSAK and the email deleted, I never even see it.

Just to add a little more confusion to the thread... If I post a .JPG file showing a state map with pushpins at every cache, no problem. If I post the same picture with each pushpin hyperlinked to a description of the cache (not GC.com), I might be in a bit of trouble.

[+Kryten]

My friend and I both obtain PQs of our nearest unfound caches. We both submit these files to a program which creates a filtered file containing only those caches unfound by us both. This we load into out respective GPSrs and then go caching. Since the overall effect is simply to remove caches, our GPSrs each contain only caches that came from our own PQ files, have we done anything wrong.

[+The Leprechauns]

My friend and I both obtain PQs of our nearest unfound caches. We both submit these files to a program which creates a filtered file containing only those caches unfound by us both. This we load into out respective GPSrs and then go caching. Since the overall effect is simply to remove caches, our GPSrs each contain only caches that came from our own PQ files, have we done anything wrong.

If the "program" is the website, "ItsNotAboutTheNumbers," then the answer is "no, you've done nothing wrong." Groundspeak granted a license to that site to allow people to upload their "My Finds" pocket queries. I am not aware of any other similar license arrangements.

 

Since you say you are submiting your "nearest unfound" PQ's, then by definition you are not using the INATN website. What is the exception to the license agreement that you are relying upon to permit the transfer of the "nearest unfound" PQ to a third party?

Edited February 12, 2008 by The Leprechauns

[+sbell111]

My friend and I both obtain PQs of our nearest unfound caches. We both submit these files to a program which creates a filtered file containing only those caches unfound by us both. This we load into out respective GPSrs and then go caching. Since the overall effect is simply to remove caches, our GPSrs each contain only caches that came from our own PQ files, have we done anything wrong.

If the "program" is the website, "ItsNotAboutTheNumbers," then the answer is "no, you've done nothing wrong." Groundspeak granted a license to that site to allow people to upload their "My Finds" pocket queries. I am not aware of any other similar license arrangements.

 

Since you say you are submiting your "nearest unfound" PQ's, then by definition you are not using the INATN website. What is the exception to the license agreement that you are relying upon to permit the transfer of the "nearest unfound" PQ to a third party?

They are using a program, not a website. I assume that it's some sort of GSAK thingy that compares the two PQs to filter the common caches.

[+trainlove]

1 Sentence in the PQ email will stop people from wanting to do things that are against those leaglease proclamations that perhaps 1% of people actually read but all automatically agree to without question.

 

I think fewer than 1% would read the line in the email. Since my PQs are downloaded automatically by GSAK and the email deleted, I never even see it.

Just to add a little more confusion to the thread... If I post a .JPG file showing a state map with pushpins at every cache, no problem. If I post the same picture with each pushpin hyperlinked to a description of the cache (not GC.com), I might be in a bit of trouble.

Well then, I should have said 0.01% of cachers read the TOU and waypoint agreement (100% of them agree to what they have not read), but if 1% of people read the one sentence in the email then that would be 100 times as many people who are well informed to their obligations in reguards to the data that they obtain.

Hyperlinked pushpins might be a problem, yes. but it's not just the coordinates that constitute the Data that's not supposed to be shared.

 

I will share a PQ result with those I will be hunting with as a group. I hope this does not get closed.

This won't get closed but you might have your membership terminated as a direct violation of the agreement you agreed to. But it all depends on how you share the PQ result.

 

My friend and I both obtain PQs of our nearest unfound caches. We both submit these files to a program which creates a filtered file containing only those caches unfound by us both. This we load into out respective GPSrs and then go caching. Since the overall effect is simply to remove caches, our GPSrs each contain only caches that came from our own PQ files, have we done anything wrong.

You are definately violating the exact reason that Groundspeak does not want users to share data, well one of the 2 big reasons that I can think of. That is unless you are using the ONE and only sanctioned third party site.

And this is why I posted this topic in the first place, to give fair warning to all criminals the extent of their crime, LOL.

 

...Am I right?

About the catch 22? Most likely. The GPX format if it's open likley has a TOS that says it remains open.

 

It may have an out for "extensions". But that would mean that basic info common to all GPX files is transferable after a fashion. Plus cache owners have put that out there for all to use. Not just Groundspeak to slurp up and lock up. We retain ownership of our data. That's also in the TOS.

 

You need the rest of the story if we are to play armchair lawyers.

There are three stories involved. The GPX TOS, Owners intent, and Groundspeaks TOS. Mix in some actual and accepated use. We don't need explicit permssion to pass on cache info. Merely adequate.

Again, this is wrong. The GPX format might be open source, but that only pertains to the tags themselves and the extensions and the schema. ALL data that one puts inbetween tags is private, or propriatary or copyrightable data and even though one might obtain it, one is not supposed to pass it on to others.

 

But honestly, by now I though someone else would have suggested that Groundspeak implement a method directly on geocaching.com, perhaps using the My Friends useless feature, to plan mutually exclusive unfound cacheing trips by one or more people.

 

I have said in other posts on this and similar subjects that beaming (via Garmin Colorado, or PDA), sharing by exchange of an SD card directly from one GPSr to another, sharing by direct cable connection using a null modem/gender changer between 2 Garmin GPSr's should be expressely spelled out as violations in the waypoint agreement

[+TotemLake]

I just recently re-started using GSAK. My premium membership lapsed last June and my laptop dies but my web email still had some PQ's.

 

One thing I do not see in the PQ email is a very simple sentence to the effect that "The following information is for YOUR own use and you are not to share it with anyone whatsoever for whatever purpose."

 

1 Sentence in the PQ email will stop people from wanting to do things that are against those leaglease proclamations that perhaps 1% of people actually read but all automatically agree to without question.

 

[GEO] Pocket Query: My Finds Pocket Query‏ 
edited for brevity...

This is a similar issue that came up before when a pertinent notice in how PQs were being handled for a temporary amount of time. It turned out most folks downloading PQs were directly importing them to GSAK and never saw the notice resulting in lost PQs for at least a week.

 

If anything, that TOS line should probably be reiterated right above the Submit button.

[+Michael]

1 Sentence in the PQ email will stop people from wanting to do things that are against those leaglease proclamations that perhaps 1% of people actually read but all automatically agree to without question.

 

I think fewer than 1% would read the line in the email. Since my PQs are downloaded automatically by GSAK and the email deleted, I never even see it.

Just to add a little more confusion to the thread... If I post a .JPG file showing a state map with pushpins at every cache, no problem. If I post the same picture with each pushpin hyperlinked to a description of the cache (not GC.com), I might be in a bit of trouble.

Well then, I should have said 0.01% of cachers read the TOU and waypoint agreement (100% of them agree to what they have not read), but if 1% of people read the one sentence in the email then that would be 100 times as many people who are well informed to their obligations in reguards to the data that they obtain.

Hyperlinked pushpins might be a problem, yes. but it's not just the coordinates that constitute the Data that's not supposed to be shared.

 

I will share a PQ result with those I will be hunting with as a group. I hope this does not get closed.

This won't get closed but you might have your membership terminated as a direct violation of the agreement you agreed to. But it all depends on how you share the PQ result.

 

My friend and I both obtain PQs of our nearest unfound caches. We both submit these files to a program which creates a filtered file containing only those caches unfound by us both. This we load into out respective GPSrs and then go caching. Since the overall effect is simply to remove caches, our GPSrs each contain only caches that came from our own PQ files, have we done anything wrong.

You are definately violating the exact reason that Groundspeak does not want users to share data, well one of the 2 big reasons that I can think of. That is unless you are using the ONE and only sanctioned third party site.

And this is why I posted this topic in the first place, to give fair warning to all criminals the extent of their crime, LOL.

 

...Am I right?

About the catch 22? Most likely. The GPX format if it's open likley has a TOS that says it remains open.

 

It may have an out for "extensions". But that would mean that basic info common to all GPX files is transferable after a fashion. Plus cache owners have put that out there for all to use. Not just Groundspeak to slurp up and lock up. We retain ownership of our data. That's also in the TOS.

 

You need the rest of the story if we are to play armchair lawyers.

There are three stories involved. The GPX TOS, Owners intent, and Groundspeaks TOS. Mix in some actual and accepated use. We don't need explicit permssion to pass on cache info. Merely adequate.

Again, this is wrong. The GPX format might be open source, but that only pertains to the tags themselves and the extensions and the schema. ALL data that one puts inbetween tags is private, or propriatary or copyrightable data and even though one might obtain it, one is not supposed to pass it on to others.

 

But honestly, by now I though someone else would have suggested that Groundspeak implement a method directly on geocaching.com, perhaps using the My Friends useless feature, to plan mutually exclusive unfound cacheing trips by one or more people.

 

I have said in other posts on this and similar subjects that beaming (via Garmin Colorado, or PDA), sharing by exchange of an SD card directly from one GPSr to another, sharing by direct cable connection using a null modem/gender changer between 2 Garmin GPSr's should be expressely spelled out as violations in the waypoint agreement

 

It might help to point out that the above opinions, although stated as facts, are opinions only. No one but Groundspeak can say what will or will not be allowed. I suggest everyone avoid statements like "You are definitely violating the exact reason that Groundspeak ..." or anything else that seems to speak for Groundspeak.

[+sbell111]

1 Sentence in the PQ email will stop people from wanting to do things that are against those leaglease proclamations that perhaps 1% of people actually read but all automatically agree to without question.

 

I think fewer than 1% would read the line in the email. Since my PQs are downloaded automatically by GSAK and the email deleted, I never even see it.

Just to add a little more confusion to the thread... If I post a .JPG file showing a state map with pushpins at every cache, no problem. If I post the same picture with each pushpin hyperlinked to a description of the cache (not GC.com), I might be in a bit of trouble.

Well then, I should have said 0.01% of cachers read the TOU and waypoint agreement (100% of them agree to what they have not read), but if 1% of people read the one sentence in the email then that would be 100 times as many people who are well informed to their obligations in reguards to the data that they obtain.

Hyperlinked pushpins might be a problem, yes. but it's not just the coordinates that constitute the Data that's not supposed to be shared.

 

I will share a PQ result with those I will be hunting with as a group. I hope this does not get closed.

This won't get closed but you might have your membership terminated as a direct violation of the agreement you agreed to. But it all depends on how you share the PQ result.

 

My friend and I both obtain PQs of our nearest unfound caches. We both submit these files to a program which creates a filtered file containing only those caches unfound by us both. This we load into out respective GPSrs and then go caching. Since the overall effect is simply to remove caches, our GPSrs each contain only caches that came from our own PQ files, have we done anything wrong.

You are definately violating the exact reason that Groundspeak does not want users to share data, well one of the 2 big reasons that I can think of. That is unless you are using the ONE and only sanctioned third party site.

And this is why I posted this topic in the first place, to give fair warning to all criminals the extent of their crime, LOL.

 

...Am I right?

About the catch 22? Most likely. The GPX format if it's open likley has a TOS that says it remains open.

 

It may have an out for "extensions". But that would mean that basic info common to all GPX files is transferable after a fashion. Plus cache owners have put that out there for all to use. Not just Groundspeak to slurp up and lock up. We retain ownership of our data. That's also in the TOS.

 

You need the rest of the story if we are to play armchair lawyers.

There are three stories involved. The GPX TOS, Owners intent, and Groundspeaks TOS. Mix in some actual and accepated use. We don't need explicit permssion to pass on cache info. Merely adequate.

Again, this is wrong. The GPX format might be open source, but that only pertains to the tags themselves and the extensions and the schema. ALL data that one puts inbetween tags is private, or propriatary or copyrightable data and even though one might obtain it, one is not supposed to pass it on to others.

 

But honestly, by now I though someone else would have suggested that Groundspeak implement a method directly on geocaching.com, perhaps using the My Friends useless feature, to plan mutually exclusive unfound cacheing trips by one or more people.

 

I have said in other posts on this and similar subjects that beaming (via Garmin Colorado, or PDA), sharing by exchange of an SD card directly from one GPSr to another, sharing by direct cable connection using a null modem/gender changer between 2 Garmin GPSr's should be expressely spelled out as violations in the waypoint agreement

 

It might help to point out that the above opinions, although stated as facts, are opinions only. No one but Groundspeak can say what will or will not be allowed. I suggest everyone avoid statements like "You are definitely violating the exact reason that Groundspeak ..." or anything else that seems to speak for Groundspeak.

Would it be possible for someone who does represent Groundspeak to speak to this issue?

[+Renegade Knight]

From the GPX website it's clear that the GPX file format is all about exchanging location based data.

 

http://www.gpxchange.com/

 

From the GC.com TOS it's clear that you can't share the data.

 

Neither of these are opinions.

 

My opinion kicks in at that the file format is open but the data may or may not be. Meaning the GC.com TOS would be the rule that governs the data. Except where the owners have given permission for their data to be transfered. That two people have control can make things tricky.

 

It's also my opinion that caching with your buddies falls under fair use and falls outside the intent of the TOS. It's a fact that most of us cache this way anyway.

 

I also agree with Trainlove that it would be a good feature to merge GPX files to create a set of mutual unfound caches. GPXBabel could probably do this. Technically it's a violation of the TOS but again it's going to fall under fair use.

 

When it comes to how to use the data our own opinion on what's fair is what we have. The TOS doesn't go caching and give pointers. We are all one our own.

 

To borrow a fact out of copyright law. Fair use is a valid defense. However it takes being tested in court to determine that what you thought was fair use was in fact fair use. Meaning, you are on your own figuring this stuff out.

[+Team Cotati]

From the GPX website it's clear that the GPX file format is all about exchanging location based data.

 

http://www.gpxchange.com/

 

From the GC.com TOS it's clear that you can't share the data.

 

Neither of these are opinions.

 

My opinion kicks in at that the file format is open but the data may or may not be. Meaning the GC.com TOS would be the rule that governs the data. Except where the owners have given permission for their data to be transfered. That two people have control can make things tricky.

 

It's also my opinion that caching with your buddies falls under fair use and falls outside the intent of the TOS. It's a fact that most of us cache this way anyway.

 

I also agree with Trainlove that it would be a good feature to merge GPX files to create a set of mutual unfound caches. GPXBabel could probably do this. Technically it's a violation of the TOS but again it's going to fall under fair use.

 

When it comes to how to use the data our own opinion on what's fair is what we have. The TOS doesn't go caching and give pointers. We are all one our own.

 

To borrow a fact out of copyright law. Fair use is a valid defense. However it takes being tested in court to determine that what you thought was fair use was in fact fair use. Meaning, you are on your own figuring this stuff out.

 

I think that that pretty well wraps this one up good and tight. Don't let me catch any of you sharig data, ok?

[+trainlove]

From the GPX website it's clear that the GPX file format is all about exchanging location based data.

 

http://www.gpxchange.com/

 

From the GC.com TOS it's clear that you can't share the data.

 

Neither of these are opinions.

 

My opinion kicks in at that the file format is open but the data may or may not be. Meaning the GC.com TOS would be the rule that governs the data. Except where the owners have given permission for their data to be transfered. That two people have control can make things tricky.

 

It's also my opinion that caching with your buddies falls under fair use and falls outside the intent of the TOS. It's a fact that most of us cache this way anyway.

 

I also agree with Trainlove that it would be a good feature to merge GPX files to create a set of mutual unfound caches. GPXBabel could probably do this. Technically it's a violation of the TOS but again it's going to fall under fair use.

 

When it comes to how to use the data our own opinion on what's fair is what we have. The TOS doesn't go caching and give pointers. We are all one our own.

 

To borrow a fact out of copyright law. Fair use is a valid defense. However it takes being tested in court to determine that what you thought was fair use was in fact fair use. Meaning, you are on your own figuring this stuff out.

 

I think that that pretty well wraps this one up good and tight. Don't let me catch any of you sharig data, ok?

 

Yes, but still no ACTUAL posts by "the powers that be" or their lawyer as to exactly what they mean about DATA.

Again that's one reason for my posting this topic in the first place.

[+CO Admin]

The license agreement you agree to when you start using PQ's is very clear. There is no reason for an additional comment from Groundspeak (GOD how I hate the phrase "TPTB". Its so rude the way its used and confusing as sometimes it means reviewers and sometimes moderators and sometimes Groundspeak)

 

Give it a rest. Demanding will not get you any additional answers when the information is already public. EVERYTHING you need to know about the allowed use of the data is in that agreement. You have your response.

 

You are not getting a pony!!!!! so stop asking.

[+TotemLake]

(GOD how I hate the phrase "TPTB". Its so rude the way its used and confusing as sometimes it means reviewers and sometimes moderators and sometimes Groundspeak)

 

I guess we could modify that a bit...

Mouthpiece=Lawyer

God=Groundspeak (person) Of (appropriate) Designation

TMTB=The Moderators That Be

TRTB=The Reviewers That Be

TPTB=Any of the above

Peons=The rest of us

 

Love it or hate it, TPTB is a mutually accepted acronym to define anybody involved with the issue at hand whom is in the position to speak authoritatively for the company (in this case, Groundspeak) and really simplifies the whole breakdown concept.

 

Can I have my pony now? (and not the one that bites)

Edited February 15, 2008 by TotemLake

[+Too Tall John]

Can I have my pony now? (and not the one that bites)

No!

However, it should be noted that I am not speaking for Groundspeak.

For those who want to merge "Un-found Caches," would it still be against the TOU if you downloaded the PQ in .loc format?

 

Edit: Hrm... it was a good thought (I think) but it appears the TOU for a PQ applies to both .gpx and .loc files.

 

Edit #2: Perhaps one of the features for the "Friends" feature will be the ability to build PQ's of multiple cachers' unfound caches, making this problem go away when it comes together?

 

I hope.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+trainlove]

For those who want to merge "Un-found Caches," would it still be against the TOU if you downloaded the PQ in .loc format?

 

I'm definately not talking for Groundspeak, but, and I'm going to call them TWTB have said in the past that LOC files are A-OK to obtain and compile into m LOC files utually exclusive lists for this very purpose. Perhaps I'll find that post but perhaps someone else will provide it.

 

As I have said all along, the DATA is more than just the cache name and coordinates. Loc files are good enough for list making, then each person's GPSr can have their very own PQ's, whittled down or not and the trip can comence.

[+Michael]

Can I have my pony now? (and not the one that bites)

No!

However, it should be noted that I am not speaking for Groundspeak.

For those who want to merge "Un-found Caches," would it still be against the TOU if you downloaded the PQ in .loc format?

 

Edit: Hrm... it was a good thought (I think) but it appears the TOU for a PQ applies to both .gpx and .loc files.

 

Edit #2: Perhaps one of the features for the "Friends" feature will be the ability to build PQ's of multiple cachers' unfound caches, making this problem go away when it comes together?

 

I hope.

You are correct, the TOU for a PQ applies to both .gpx and .loc files.

[+The Blue Quasar]

And when you can filter out for two people, then people will want it to support three, then four...

 

It seems rather straight forward, you may not share the data contained in a .GPX file that you receive from Groundspeak. If you create a .GPX of data not gathered from or originating from Groundspeak then you can share it all you like. I think the only exception is if you create a .GPX file of your own caches from Groundspeak since you still retain the right to the data. Why blur this? But this is just my opinion.

 

I guess we are weird. We actually pick one cache and meet somewhere beforehand then go do it. Then we all talk about where to go next. Sometimes we repeat caches, other times we talk about the cache if we've already done it, and sometimes we play 'Got it - Need it'.

 

BQ